King Versus Burwell--the ACA challenge has basic issues

++Joan McCarter at the Dailykos has nailed a fundamental problem with the latest challenge to Obamacare. The plaintiff David King looks like he would have no standing in court because as a Vietnam Vet he has access to VA healthcare and would not be penalized in any way by Obamacare. There is another Vietnam vet with the same issue. The only plaintiff who might retain her standing is the woman substitute teacher who is months way from Medicare. 

++Contrast that with the same-sex marriage cases where the plaintiffs are carefully screened for favorability, good copy,kids,the whole narrative.

++David King is a virulently anti-Obama right-winger who spends his time on social media churning out attacks on the President. A reporter managed to see him only by camping out at his house. Now even the Wall Street Journal admits his standing looks dubious.

++Flashback to Linda Greenhouse's Times column that was shocked by how quick this case was accepted when the DC Circuit Court had not even convened the full court to rule--which they would have ruled for Obamacare and killed this dead. Instead SCOTUS jumped the gun, signalling an explicit political agenda by the 4 judges accepting the case. 

++Then flash forward to Linda Greenhouse analysis of why the court deciding this case for the plaintiffs would be ruinous for the court because even the conservative judges have constantly ruled that the specific language of a law must be read within in its full context.

++We have reems of amicus curiae briefs by the drafters of the legislation showing they always intended everyone got subsidies whether on the federal and state exchanges. Also put in Senator Nelson's statement from the last week, as the major architect of the state exchanges, that never did he intend it so that only state exchanges got subsidies. 

++The whole thing reeks when the plaintiff hasn't and is unlikely to be harmed by the law. Unfortunately it has the stink that Citizens United had before the case convened. Remember then Floyd Abrams wanted a limited ruling from the court on the film about Hilary Clinton and the court asked him to expand the case to deal with corporate campaign contributions.